Resolve Mouse Marker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral details: the return format (mgi_id, symbol, etc.), the error behavior for ambiguous queries, and the collision handling for human symbols identical to mouse symbols. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose. It includes a signature line with response_mode default, but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy with the schema for response_mode.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple input types, ambiguous resolution, ortholog mapping), the description is thorough. It covers all relevant edge cases and return fields. The output schema exists, so return format is partially covered, but the description complements it well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with examples and descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the match_type field and the edge case of human symbol collision, which is not in the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states explicitly that the tool resolves mouse marker references to canonical MGI records, listing accepted input types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_markers or get_marker by focusing on resolution and canonical retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool, including edge cases such as ambiguous symbols returning an error and human gene symbol collisions. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the purpose is specific enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.